Ok, I read this, and I know that I'm not the judge or anything, but WTF did he really do wrong?
The main part:
According to evidence in the trial, federal investigators in January 2006 purchased an online membership to the Max Hardcore Web site and downloaded five promotional video clips. Then, in March 2007, an undercover postal inspector bought five DVDs from the Web site, having them delivered to a post office box in Tampa.
The videos featured scenes of vomiting and urination, showing women being forced to ingest various bodily fluids.
Federal prosecutor Edward McAndrew, a lawyer with the Justice Department, said the videos were "some of the most extreme material available on the Internet."
"This case is not about the conduct," McAndrew said. "It's not about consenting adults. It's about commercial distribution. … He made a choice that his material would be more extreme than others. What he creates gives mainstream pornography a bad name."
McAndrew said Little was undeterred by his conviction and had sold two of the videos in question after his was convicted.
In seeking a more lenient sentence, one of Little's attorneys argued that the videos were not sadomasochistic. "Urine and vomit, our argument is, isn't sadistic or masochistic," James Benjamin said.
"What about humiliation?" the judge asked.
That, Benjamin replied, isn't in the legal definition of sadomasochistic.
"Clearly, there seemed to be pain," Bucklew said.
That was acting, Benjamin said. "The person that was involved in the conduct sat [in court] with a smile on her face and wrote your honor a letter saying, 'Judge, this was a beautiful part of my life.' "
"I don't even think this is a close call," the judge said. The videos portrayed "sadistic conduct. …This is clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so."
Is this not legislating morality? I mean, the actors and actresses weren't arrested were they? Nor was the distributor. This feels more like a vendetta than about protecting anyone.
